Posted on 12/19/2005 10:28:20 AM PST by SC33
The smuggler wasn't difficult to spot. He sat high on a hillside at a place called Cap Rock, large binoculars in hand, watching U.S. Border Patrol agents below as they policed the Mexican border near San Diego.
His technique is blatant, but it is the modus operandi used by thousands of smugglers along the nearly 2,000-mile southern U.S. border. They no longer hide.
(Excerpt) Read more at sbsun.com ...
Conclusion of this article:
Bonner said it's part of a larger trend.
"The administration dances to the tune of big business," he said. "Our agents are left to fend for themselves, and our borders are wide open.
"In all reality, it is as if the government does not want to enforce its own laws."
These crossers were spotted by civilian volunteers, who were well hidden. They were crossing in daylight after the USBP vehicle passed by. This is repeated hundreds of times a day.
Mexico is on the left. The illegals merely need to run 75 feet to make it to cover, and after that they wait for their prearranged rides to take them to San Diego or LA.
This is the Duncan Hunter 15' fence. There are 14 miles of it in San Diego County currently. This is what might be built along 700 miles of the border.
ping
..."In all reality, it is as if the government does not want to enforce its own laws."...
Reality bites sometimes.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
The invasion continues unabated. If hard-ass reporters want to earn their bones asking tough questions of POTUS they should ask about this, not his very legitimate attempts to prevent terrorism with electronic listening posts.
>>>They no longer hide.
Why should they? No consequences to speak of. Getting caught is no more of a nuisance than a traffic ticket.
Blatantly and willfully violating his sworn oath to uphold the constitution certainly provides the basis for an argument for impeachment.
ping
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
You cannot say that what President Bush's border policy is 'more dangerous' than President Clinton's ignoring al Qaeda, because with the border policy, you are speculating. Whereas with Clinton we have the proof of 3,000 Americans dead.
Once again...........your extremist rhetoric negates any argument you might make.
I will read the article, ignoring your hyperbole, and draw my own conclusions.
Saying that President Bush deserves impeachment renders your arguments imopotent, because it is clearly irrational, and not based on logic, history, OR the Constitution.
I, for one, would not support impeachment unless there was an attack and the attacker came across the border illegally. I am, however, getting to the point where I believe that nothing else will matter if Bush does not deal with this issue. I am very close to becoming a single-issue voter, and I will not blindly vote Republican. I do not think I am alone, either, and I wonder if the GOP is willing to take their chances.
(Legitimate question to a newbie).
Of course I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.